Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS

[HaigLaw]

What to make of Longman? I don't know.

Any thoughts on Longman and his work? I enjoyed his commentary on Ecclesiastes although it has an untraditional view. It made sense to me.

(Quoting Longman on Enns)

... However one of the
reasons why I left in 1998 was my perception that the
seminary was beginning to change from the deeply
Reformed but outward facing institution that it was
from the time that I first knew it in the 1970’s to a
more inward defensive institution. I remember talking
to one colleague, for instance, who told me that if I
felt the Bible taught something that the Confession
did not that I had to side with the Confession. That’s
not the Reformed approach to the study of the Bible
that I know and love. However it is a perspective that
I think has only grown with time.
In any case, I have no desire to cast aspersions on
anyone. I think everyone is acting out of a good
conscience in this. This, however, I can say with a
great measure of confidence. The present Old Testament
department represents continuity with the past. I work
closely with Peter Enns. We are co-editing two Bible
dictionaries together and are on a number of editorial
boards. I have served as his editor for his wonderful
Exodus commentary and have read his important
Incarnation and Inspiration three times. In my own
speaking and teaching, I have talked to countless
people whose faith has been increased and whose
confidence in the Bible has been enhanced by reading
this book. His thinking is clearly within the
Princeton-Westminster tradition. If WTS loses him or
anyone else, I worry who might replace them. Will they
continue the WTS tradition while still not “shirking
the difficult questions”? I know what I think about
the matter and I am confident that my dear departed
friend Ray Dillard would agree.
I would encourage my former students and others to
express their support for the OT department at WTS.
Notice I am asking for shows of support. We can do
this without casting aspersions on anyone at the
seminary.

The line about the Bible speaking to an issue and the Confession not, and having to side with the Confession, makes no sense, the way it's worded. Now if the Confession speaks to an issue and contradicts the Bible, then you have to side with the Bible, and let your fellow elders know your views on that; but that's not the way he phrased it.

As for whether he says Enns is orthodox, he never says. Enns is a good guy and his writings have blessed others -- is all he says. That's why I don't know what to make of it. Why is he hesitating? He's gone from there now, apparently. Or is he still adjunct?

It's like Semper Fi counseled me on PB not to side with the FVers on the basis that Steve Wilkins is a nice guy or needed his paycheck. Not that I was so inclined, but I appreciated my ole Marine friend's counsel nevertheless.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?

Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?

Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.

A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)

So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.

You don't see a problem with this?

I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dr. Longman, the Robert H. Gundry professor of Biblical Studies at Wesmont (my alma mater) is known for his Reformed evangelicalism. I am sure that he is a man of integrity and have personally been helped by some of his writings.

However, it does not surprise me that he would defend Westminster. The chair he holds at Westmont is named after my major professor (and the one who officiated at my wedding) who takes a Midrash view of Matthew (e.g., no magi, no star, no women in Jesus' real genealogy), was booted from the ETS, and was the one against whom John Piper wrote his Counted Righteous in Christ. In other words, Dr. Longman teaches at a school known for its uncompromising commitment to broad evangelicalism.

I would not count his recommendation as meaning any more than that Dr. Enns fits within the big tent of broader evangelicalism. But, as a confessional seminary, I thought that WTS was supposed to take stands somewhat more specific than what would be acceptable at a Westmont, Wheaton, Azusa, Asbury, or Fuller. Dr. Longman's explanation for leaving WTS for Westmont speaks of his concern that WTS was becoming more "inward" and "defensive." Based on what some of my TR brethren have written on this board, I would think that many of you disagree with the direction WTS is going, including the course Dr. Longman would like to have seen it take. Regardless of Enns' orthodoxy (I don't know the man), he may still not fit within a confessional framework. And, that is an open question for the trustees of WTS to determine with respect to his employment and his ecclesiastical authorities with respect to his ministerial standing.

 

[HaigLaw]

we all make choices.

A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)

So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.

You don't see a problem with this?

I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.

It's called freedom of association. I could decide to quit dialoging with you, without filing charges with your session or presbytery.

If someone were to ask my why I quit dialoging with you, I could give them a reason, without backing it up with a conviction before the church court that has jurisdiction over you.

I could say -- he's obsessed about church courts. I don't think that's a 9th commandment offense. That's an opinion. I'm free to act on my opinions; and people who respect my opinion are free to act on them too.

Maybe people who are obsessed about church courts will want to dialog with you, so my opinion spread around might help you.

Others who might not agree with my opinion but are not obsessed about church courts might give you more attention to see if they agree with my opinion or not.

Even the ones who agree with me and ignore you are not hurting you, because you had no right to their attention to start with.

Make sense?

 

[wsw201]

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.

 

[HaigLaw]

thanks!

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.

Yes, indeed, we do know better now.

 

[Pilgrim]

Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?

Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?

Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.

 

[Pilgrim]

Is it the pastor's place to make a heresy judgment against a brother elder in his own or fraternal denomination? Isn't that what church courts are for?

Or is it OK to function as an independent when we think it is expedient?

Every heresy trial at every presbytery starts with a charge by an individual elder stating the kinds of opinions that you are saying no elder can express apart from the collective judgment of some presbytery.

A charge is very different from a decision/conviction. Anyone can make a charge. But no individual may act towards a brother based merely on a charge. (A trial court may take appropriate action based on church order to convict/vindicate the accused.)

So what do we have in this case? A pastor makes a charge with no intent or ability to carry through on the charge other than to warn potential students about a perceived problem.

You don't see a problem with this?

I will admit it is troublesome at times being presbyterian.

I do see a problem if the pastor or elder believes another officer is guilty of heresy but does not move to charge him for whatever reason. My understanding is this is largely how the PCUSA was lost.

 

[A5pointer]

McArthur weighs in John H Armstrong : Interpreting the Bible: The False Assumptions of Modernism

 

[A5pointer]

As I am understanding what the content of the controversy is about, I realize it has barely been tackled in this thread. Ens and others contention is that modern insistence for wooden literal factual historical accuracy on the ancients is unwarranted. Any thoughts?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Make sense?

Not really in this context since your earlier comment had to do with a pastor reading a book and giving pastoral advice to students under his care as to which seminary to attend. So it was not really a personal matter. Now you have turned it into a personal matter, which is fine as far as it goes.

But it fails to address my earlier concerns about publically labeling brethren based on personal opinion.

Scott Clark said something in another thread that I think is important and speaks to the fundamental issue:

I'm glad for your zeal but take it up with the Reformed Churches. Gordon Clark was a good man and we've all benefitted from his teaching, even those of us who have fundamental disagreements with him, but there is a basic difference in the authority of the private views of a philosopher/theologian and the public confession of the Reformed churches.

Exactly! That is what I have been trying to say here wrt the private, individual pronouncements against Dr. Enns. You may read his book and consider it troubling, even heretical. But Dr. Enns is a man under authority, the authority of a presbytery called by God to make judgment calls as to a man’s confessionalism. I would even go so far as to say that any pronouncements by an independent seminary amount to no more than “private views” ala Dr. Clark’s comment.

All you may say at this point is that he doesn’t appear to agree with your interpretation of the confession. You may think that's enough to withdraw fellowship or reco young students not attend his seminary, but I certainly wouldn’t go that far.

 

[tcalbrecht]

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.

Which presbytery is it, and how are they involved at this time?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Interesting related article by Reed DePace over at Green Baggins.

 

[wsw201]

One should not assume that Mr. Enn's Presbytery is not already involved. A lot of folks thought for a long time that LAP was sitting on their collective hands regarding Wilkins but know we know better.

Which presbytery is it, and how are they involved at this time?

I do not know what Presbytery he is apart of.

I do not know what his Presbytery is doing or how involved they are, but I think it is safe to assume that they are aware of this situation and will deal with it. As you know, the wheels of Presbytery turn very slowly.

 

[HaigLaw]

public vs. private views?

Make sense?

Not really in this context since your earlier comment had to do with a pastor reading a book and giving pastoral advice to students under his care as to which seminary to attend. So it was not really a personal matter. Now you have turned it into a personal matter, which is fine as far as it goes.

But it fails to address my earlier concerns about publically labeling brethren based on personal opinion.

The public-private distinction you make is not the issue. I used two examples to reason with you -- one a pastor counseling a seminary candidate, and two a hypothetical dialog between you and me.

The public-private point you make is what we in the law call a "distinction without a difference." Or, a distinction that makes no difference to the point at hand.

The point at hand was the legitimacy of WTS exercising orthodoxy determinations in terms of whom it retains on its faculty.

You questioned that legitimacy; I defended it.

It makes no sense to characterize WTS's decision to let the professor go as a "private" decision. It was very public the instant they announced it. Hundreds of churches and thousands of presbyterian church members are interested in the orthodoxy of WTS's professors. And rightly so.

They took 3 years to act on this professor's book.

It took Reformed Jackson only one year to get rid of Bahnsen after his Theonomy in Christian Ethics was published.

And the latter was not a matter of orthodoxy, but merely controversy.

I question the wisdom of that, but not the para-ecclesiastical authority.

It was very unwise of them to run Greg off, but they surely had the authority.

 

[tcalbrecht]

The point at hand was the legitimacy of WTS exercising orthodoxy determinations in terms of whom it retains on its faculty.

You questioned that legitimacy; I defended it.

It makes no sense to characterize WTS's decision to let the professor go as a "private" decision. It was very public the instant they announced it. Hundreds of churches and thousands of presbyterian church members are interested in the orthodoxy of WTS's professors. And rightly so.

We are in agreement that WTS decision was not a "private matter".

We disagree as to whether independent WTS has the legitimate authority to determine orthodoxy (what is confessional and what is not), and base faculty decisions on such independent determinations.

I’m still waiting for any argument on the nature of independent authority in the matter of confessional determination.

That is the distinction with a difference, in my opinion.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a seminary's authority in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.

 

[A5pointer]

Hi Lane, Is there anything on your blog that discusses Enn's thrust that ancient literature is being forced to be something it was not intended to be by modern interpreters? Thanks

 

[greenbaggins]

I don't think so. The only real issue I have dealt with in regard to Enns has been the situation as a whole, and how it is being handled by WTS. I have read I&I, however.

 

[A5pointer]

I don't think so. The only real issue I have dealt with in regard to Enns has been the situation as a whole, and how it is being handled by WTS. I have read I&I, however.

Well? Any thoughts you wish to share in public? If not I understand.

 

[Scott]

We are in agreement that WTS decision was not a "private matter".

We disagree as to whether independent WTS has the legitimate authority to determine orthodoxy (what is confessional and what is not), and base faculty decisions on such independent determinations.

I’m still waiting for any argument on the nature of independent authority in the matter of confessional determination.

That is the distinction with a difference, in my opinion.

Of course WTS has authority. They pay the money. We are not talking about civil servants here.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always polemical against the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.

 

[Scott]

I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always polemical against the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.

It seems to me that if we need the DSS to understand the Bible, then the scriptures would be of little value to anyone but speculative scholars.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a seminary's authority in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.

We know where a presbytery gets its authority. It is divinely instituted and strictly regulated by the Word of God. It has the power to institute and define confessions, require subscription of its members, define the boundaries of subscription, and discipline those who stray.

From whence cometh the seminary's parallel authority? I can’t find anything in the Bible to instruct an independent seminary in this regard?

Or is this just a business proposition? It can make rules for its employees same as Penn State or Pizza Hut.

Is it merely de facto authority and I should just get over it?

 

[greenbaggins]

I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always polemical against the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.

It seems to me that if we need the DSS to understand the Bible, then the scriptures would be of little value to anyone but speculative scholars.

Right. However, there is a difference between those passages of Scripture that are so clear that a normal person, aided by the Holy Spirit, can come into a correct understanding of them for salvation. And indeed, even the other parts of Scripture would not be misunderstood as to their general content, even if we had no extra-biblical texts available to us. However, I would not be willing to say that extra-biblical sources have never helped us to understand better any passages of Scripture.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think where I would net out on this is in the scope of a seminary's authority in contrast with the authority that a Presbytery has, say. A seminary has the authority to determine what it is going to teach within its bounds, just as a presbytery has the authority to determine what is going to be taught within its bounds. A seminary therefore has the right to determine what constitutes confessionalism within its range of authority.

We know where a presbytery gets its authority. It is divinely instituted and strictly regulated by the Word of God. It as the power to institute and define confessions, require subscription of its members, define the boundaries of subscription, and discipline those who stray.

From whence cometh the seminary's parallel authority? I can’t find anything in the Bible to instruct an independent seminary in this regard?

Or is this just a business proposition? It can make rules for its employees same as Penn State or Pizza Hut.

Is it merely de facto authority and I should just get over it?

Well, I think that the question of a seminary's authority, and the question of whether there ought to be independent seminaries are two separate questions. I have wrestled with the latter question for some time. I am not in the least happy with my own denominational seminary. It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good for that seminary to be under the aegis of the PCA. I don't know that any biblical case can be made one way or the other.

 

[A5pointer]

Are there Biblical text that indicate the HS role in aiding of interpretation? The one's I know of seem to be specific to faith in the Gospel and to the teaching to the apostles equipping them specifically ie John.

 

[Gryphonette]

Both types of seminaries, tied houses and independents, have strengths and weaknesses

Well, I think that the question of a seminary's authority, and the question of whether there ought to be independent seminaries are two separate questions. I have wrestled with the latter question for some time. I am not in the least happy with my own denominational seminary. It doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good for that seminary to be under the aegis of the PCA. I don't know that any biblical case can be made one way or the other.

It seems to me the trouble with Tom's position is that it cuts off at the knees the primary strength of an independent seminary, which is its ability to withstand the errors of doctrine which might come in from the various denominations from which it has drawn its professors. An independent seminary hopefully can act as a stabilizing influence in the Reformed world as it works to maintain a consistent confessionalism, even though on or more erstwhile Reformed denominations go peculiar.

If the seminary is forced to bow the knee to any self-professed Reformed denomination, no matter how unconfessional it has become, then there's no "independence" worth mentioning.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I apologize for not responding directly to your earlier comments. Hopefully I can cover them here.

It seems to me the trouble with Tom's position is that it cuts off at the knees the primary strength of an independent seminary, which is its ability to withstand the errors of doctrine which might come in from the various denominations from which it has drawn its professors. An independent seminary hopefully can act as a stabilizing influence in the Reformed world as it works to maintain a consistent confessionalism, even though on or more erstwhile Reformed denominations go peculiar.

If the seminary is forced to bow the knee to any self-professed Reformed denomination, no matter how unconfessional it has become, then there's no "independence" worth mentioning.

I don't have a problem with the charge because, fundamentally, I'm not an independent. The spirit and illusion of independency, especially in a seminary ostensibly purposed with training men for Reformed churches, is troubling, at least it is to me.

I guess it is possible to justify the existence of these bodies based on the practical experience of denominations going bad, but that reason, if taken to its logical conclusion, could justify all sorts of anti-ecclesial independent activities.

I found an interesting comment on the WTS describing the school:

Since our founding, Westminster has been an unusually faculty-oriented institution. In the early years, all institutional decisions, large and small, were made by the faculty at formal faculty meetings, chaired by different faculty members. In 1952, the Board of Trustees appointed Professor Ed Clowney the first president of the Seminary. Since then, delegation of institutional affairs to professional administrators has occurred, but the faculty continues to have exceptional authority over, and responsibility for, the life of the Seminary.

Westminster Theological Seminary - Our Founders

Now I understand that at this faculty-oriented institution the faculty voted 12-8 to support Dr. Enns’ views, but because of the division the board voted to suspend Dr. Enns and ask a committee to "recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary." It will be interesting to see the process recommendation.

When a church needs to decide how to proceed against an officer with potentially errant views, it at least has the authority from God to act and an assurance of divine guidance (Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

BTW, Scripture tells us that gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church, not independent seminaries. Even though they are all officers in "self-professed Reformed denominations", the board of WTS does not exercise the keys of the kingdom. I might argue that by their very nature (independency) the path to error is wide before them. WTS may merely be well along that path. There is no divine institution to pull them back.

In my opinion, "self-professed Reformed denominations" are far better off than self-professed yet independent Reformed seminaries.

 

[wsw201]

I think I would agree to some extent with Enns on this, though there need to be boundaries set. I do think that ancient history writing differs from modern history writing in some significant ways. However, what Enns does not do justice to is the fact that the biblical writing was always polemical against the ANE. I get the feeling with Enns that there is way too much continuity between ANE writing and the Bible. I remember having a conversation with him at GA last year in which I was commenting on Poole's Synopsis Criticorum. Enns seemed a bit neutral with regard to the work. But he did comment about how we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The comment seemed to assume that whole paradigms have shifted in biblical interpretation since the Reformation, by means of discovering such scrolls as these. Now, far be it from me to denigrate using the DSS in seeking to understand the first-century world. I have no doubt that many good insights have come from that. However, the main interpreter of Scripture is Scripture, not outside texts. I wonder how much he would affirm that.

How would you compare Enns use of ANE versus Kline's use of ANE.